Chennai Court February 1998 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Lucas Tvs Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1998
Reported in: [2000]242ITR136(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The questions referred for our decision at the instance of the assessee in respect of the assessment of its income for the assessment year 1978-79 are :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the weighted deduction under Section 35B is not allowable on : (1) interest on packing credit, (2) certificate expense, and (3) inspection agency fee ? 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that while arriving at the ceiling under Section 40(c) the reimbursement of the medical expenses should be taken into account ?' 2. The second question may first be disposed of as it is submitted by counsel that the law has been laid down by this court on a similar question considered in the case of Rane (Madras) Ltd. v. CIT : [1995]212ITR583(Mad) wherein it was held that the medical reimbursement pay was required to be taken into account while invoking the provisions of Section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act. We, theref...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Stanes Tyre and Rubber Products Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1998
Reported in: [2000]242ITR619(Mad)
1. The question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue is, 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the motor vans and three wheelers owned by the assessee would fall under item No. III-D(9) of Appendix-I, Part I of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, and, consequently, they would be entitled to depreciation at the enhanced rate of 30 per cent. ?'2. The assessee, Stanes Tyre and Rubber Products Limited, Coimbatore, had claimed depreciation on the vans and three wheelers owned by it for the assessment year 1972-73. The Income-tax Officer initially appears to have allowed depreciation at the rate of 30 per cent, but subsequently reopened the assessment and reduced the depreciation to 20 per cent. The assessee's appeal against that order was allowed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who held that the vans and three wheelers are not 'motor cars, motor cycles, scooters or other mopeds' which are mentioned as item...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kikani and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1998
Reported in: [1999]240ITR831(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the question that has been referred to us which is common to the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76, is as to whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the continuation of registration granted to the firm for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76 cannot be cancelled on the ground that on the attainment of majority by one of the minors admitted to the benefits of partnership, no new deed of partnership was drawn by the partners.2. The firm, Kikani and Company, Coimbatore, was constituted under the partnership deed dated June 8, 1963, and had, inter alia, admitted one Yogeshkumar Kikani, at that time a minor, to the benefits of partnership. The said minor attained the age of majority on March 14, 1973. The firm had been registered and the registration of the firm had continued from year to year. After the erstwhile minor attained majority, he did not give any p...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.N. Sulaiman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1998
Reported in: (1998)145CTR(Mad)297; [1999]238ITR139(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. For the assessment year 1970-71, the following questions of law have been referred to us for our decision at the instance of the Revenue :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?(2) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding and had valid materials to hold that the order of the Income-tax Officer was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue ?'2. The Commissioner of Income-tax had for that assessment year initated proceedings under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as he felt that the order of assessment made by the Income-tax Officer on February 28, 1977, was prejudicial to the Revenue inasmuch as the value of the construction put up by the assessee had been understated and the low valuation offered by the assessee in the view of the Commissioner, had ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Parry and Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1998
Reported in: [1999]238ITR401(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question that has been referred to us at the instance of the Revenue in respect of the respondents, Parry and Co. Ltd., assessment for the assessment year 1971-72, is as to whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the cost of shares sold has to be taken on the basis of cost of acquisition and that the method of averaging the cost of acquisition of shares should not be followed even though bonus shares were allotted subsequently ?2. The dispute between the parties centres round the capital gain or loss arising from the sale of ordinary shares in Parry's Confectionery Ltd. The assessee sold 1,86,750 shares, out of that 1,21,490 shares had been purchased by the assessee for cash at Rs. 2 per share on August 9, 1958. The balance of 65,230 shares had been purchased on July 31, 1967, at the same price. At the time of sale the assessee held a total of 10,28,889 shares in the company. It had received bonu...
A. Chinnaraja Vs. N.S. Subbaiyah and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ370
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the first defendant in O.S. No. 100 of 1997, on the file of Sub Court, Palani. Two plaintiffs, who are respondents herein, filed the said suit, to direct the first defendant to surrender possession of the property to the plaintiffs, and directing him to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000 being the value of firewood and seized timber to the plaintiffs, with interest at 18% per annum from date of suit till payment, and also to direct an enquiry into the past and future mesne profits under Order 20, Rule 12, C.P.C, and to grant permanent injunction restraining the first defendant and his man from putting up any further construction in the suit property, and also award costs of the suit, and grant such further reliefs.2. Facts narrated in the plaint may briefly be stated thus : First plaintiff is the son of late N.R.S. Ramasamy Chettiar. Between himself and his father, there was a partition on 22.5.1964...
Binny Ltd. Registered Under the Companies Act, Represented by Manager ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ379
S.S. Subramani, J.1. 1st Defendant in O.S. No. 1180 of 1971, on the file of the II Assistant City Civil Court, Madras, is the appellant.2. Two plaintiffs have filed a suit under Order 7, Rule 1 and Order 1, Rule 8, C.P.C., for the following reliefs : (a) restraining the defendant by issuing a permanent injunction from loading or unloading or stacking coal or any other materials offensive or injurious to the health of the plaintiffs and other local residents and/or to the value or utility of their properties;(b) directing the first defendant to pay the costs; and(c) granting the plaintiffs such further or other reliefs as the Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.3. In the body of the plaint it is said that the plaintiffs have filed the suit on their behalf and on behalf of the residents living near Perambur High Road, Perambur, Madras. The reason for filing the suit was that the 1st defendant is using its land in the said locality in the way resulting injurious...
V.S. Arunachalam Vs. the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ616
ORDERY. Venkatachalam, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioner invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to issue sale deed to the petitioner in respect of M.I.G. Plot No. 150 with building allotted to him M.K.B. Nagar, Vyasarpadi, Madras-39 by letter No.40574 H (I)/73, dated 27.7.1974 without demanding any amount in excess of Rs. 57,400 demanded from him on 12.12.1977 and to refund the excess amount collected with interest at 18% p.a. from the date the excess amount is with the Board.2. In support of the writ petition, the writ petitioner has filed an affidavit wherein he has narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced him to file the present writ petition. The respondent did not file any counter.3. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and also that of the learned Counsel for the respondent/Board.4. I have also gone through the contents of the affidavit to...
Rani Mohanraj and ors. Vs. P. Rajarathinam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ539
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against an ex parts order of ad interim injunction granted by the lower court;2. The order of ad-interim injunction was passed in a petition filed by the respondent herein, along with a Guardian O.P. to declare and appoint him as the person and property guardian of Minor Varsha Dhanashree, and also for costs of the proceedings.3. The properties scheduled to that petition belonged to one Mohanraj who died on 23.11.1997. First petitioner herein is his widow, and petitioners 2 and 3 are her parents. Varsha Dhanashree is the daughter born to Mohanraj through the first petitioner, and her date of birth is 23.2.1991. It is the case of the respondent herein in the Guardian O.P. that late Mohanraj executed a Will whereby he has appointed the respondent along with the first petitioner herein as joint guardian of. person and property of the minor. It is said that the Will came into force on the death ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kikani and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1998
Reported in: (1998)148CTR(Mad)432
ORDERR. JAYASIMHA BABU, J:At the instance of the Revenue the question that has been referred to us which is common to the asst. yrs. 1974-75 and 1975-76, is as to whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the continuation of registration granted to the firm for the asst. yrs. 1974-75 to 1975-76 cannot be cancelled on the ground that on the attainment of majority by one of the minors admitted to the benefits of partnership, no new deed of partnership was drawn up by the partners.2. The firm, Kikani & Co., Coirribatore, was constituted under the partnership deed dt. 8th June, 1963 and had inter alia, admitted one Kikani at that time Yogesh Kumar a minor to the benefits of partnership. The said minor attained the age of majority on 14th March, 1973. The firm had continued from year to year. After the erstwhile minor attained majority, he did not give any public notice that he has elected to become partner or opted out of the partner...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »